My Visit to SCO

The full story of what one person who signed SCO's NDA encountered on his trip to Lindon, Utah.

Linux is Tainted

Here, we come to the meat of the issue: has code clearly
derived from Unix been incorporated into Linux? Unfortunately, SCO
was willing to show me only one example. I was shown a source file
Sontag said was from SVR4, which was compared to a source file from
Linux. The identical portions of the code were highlighted. There
were indeed substantial similarities in the code: very similar
comment text, the same variable names, the same algorithm. There
also were some differences, but it seemed quite plausible that both
pieces of code came from the same source.

SCO refused to show me the revision history of the Unix file.
I pointed out this made it impossible to judge the order of
derivation; SCO agreed, and said it was a matter of discovery for
the court case. SCO said it is confident the code had not appeared
in BSD and was developed internally at AT&T and
successors.

The NDA I signed prohibits me from saying anything that would
help identify the code in question or anything about how it got
into Linux (I discuss the issue of secrecy further below). SCO did
not permit me to type the code, but I was told the Linux file name,
and I have a good memory for such things in any case.

Here is what I think I can say about the code I saw. The code
is fairly trivial--the kind of stuff I wrote in school. The similar
portions of the code were some 80 lines or so. Looking around the
Net, I found close variants of the code, with the same comments and
variable names, in sources other than Linux distributions. The code
is not in a central part of the Linux kernel. The code does not
appear to have been contributed to Linux by SCO or Caldera. The
code exists in current versions of the Linux kernel.

Also, oddly, my recollection of the code SCO showed me is not
precisely the same as any version I found in any Linux
distribution. The differences were in parts of the code that were
different from the Unix code. The copyright statement at the top of
the file also appeared to be different, though probably not
consequentially. However, because I was not permitted actually to
type the code, my memory could be playing tricks on me here.

If this is SCO's only example of Unix code appearing in
Linux, I very much doubt there is any real legal liability for
Linux users. If the code is indeed derived from Unix, which is
unproven, it is roughly equivalent to typing in some code from a
basic computer programming text without permission. While I
hesitate to predict the actions of the legal system, it is very
difficult for me to believe that any judge actually would award
damages on the basis of this code.

Naturally, SCO says many other examples exist, and it has
found at least 10 to 20 specific examples of direct copying. SCO
said there was much more derivative code. It claims there are cases
in which copied code intentionally was obfuscated and rearranged to
hide its origin. I commented I felt such a scenario would be
difficult to prove, and indeed I sincerely doubt that anybody would
bother.

SCO said that only in the last month or two has it really
started analyzing Linux kernels for cases of copying. SCO claims it
steadily is finding more cases and that all of this will come out
in court.

It's difficult to know what to make of this type of argument.
SCO showed me something that appears suggestive but that also
apparently is inconsequential. SCO claims to have much more
evidence, which I was not shown. It's tempting to conclude this is
SCO's best case and it has no strong evidence. After all, if SCO
can make its case to somebody like me, then it is in a stronger
position for extracting revenue by licensing Linux to customers who
are scared of lawsuits. But SCO may have other plans.

I admit that SCO's example unsettled me by what it implies.
Although in itself trivial, it does suggest that some Linux
contributors may have been careless about copyright infringement.
That is unfortunate.

My Questions

After the presentation was over, I asked a few questions. I
asked SCO when it expected to go to court. The answer was document
discovery and depositions have begun. No court dates are
set.

I asked why SCO sent letters to commercial users of Linux
distributions, but I was not given a satisfactory answer. SCO said
the letter was to make Linux users aware that it believes Linux is
tainted and contains unauthorized intellectual property. The letter
was to tell the Linux users they may have some liability and should
seek advice from counsel. SCO said Linux users then could go
through the same process of discovery that SCO presently is going
through--but, of course, the users can't, because they don't have
the Unix sources. My guess is the letters were to set themselves up
for Linux licensing.

I asked whether SCO has any plans to license the Unix code to
Linux users, to remove the liability. SCO said it has no current
program. It hopes to come up with something in which noncommercial
use and educational use would be free, but for commercial use it
wants some remuneration. SCO said it hadn't come up with a plan
because it still is trying to figure out the scale of the problem.
SCO hopes to have some sort of solution by as early as July.

SCO commented that Linux has no mechanism that ensures
ownership of the IP which goes into it. It said most Linux
developers are honorable, but some commercial entities are bending
the rules for their own benefit.

I asked about the lawsuit between AT&T and BSDI. That
lawsuit was not ended by a judgment, it was settled between the
parties, and the settlement was in large part confidential. SCO,
which I presume is the legal inheritor of the AT&T side of the
settlement, claims some aspects of the settlement have not been
enforced but would not describe it further. SCO has not yet looked
into whether, in its opinion, the free BSDs legally are derivative
of the Unix sources. I assume if SCO can get a handle on the Linux
situation, it'll go after the free BSDs next.

I paused for a while, trying to think of my next question,
and Chris Sontag said he had another meeting to attend and
left.

Blake Stowell asked me what I would do if I owned some
proprietary code, and it was being used by other people without
permission. I said that Unix had been widely distributed for many
years, had been published in books and was not, after all, actually
written by anybody at SCO. I said I didn't think that was easily
compared to more conventional situations. Incidentally, Blake
Stowell worked at Lineo and joined Caldera in 2001. He agreed that
the company had radically changed since that time.

That was the end of the meeting. The rest of this essay
discusses a few relevant topics in more detail.

how does SCO know (think) that Linux is using their code? Because they can see the code we are writing, it gets released routinely. And they can compare it to their code, which they can obviously look at anytime they want.

Now, how do we (Linux developers) know that we are infringing on SCO/IBM/Microsoft/Oracle code? We don't. Because we can't see their code.

There was a court case that was similar to this, and the decision came down that the company that owned that "which could not be seen" was LIABLE to make sure that the stuff "that could be seen" did not make it into their product, since IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE to go the other way.

I am digging through law libraries right now to find the relevant case. It was not software, but patent law, and the similarities are amazing.

A copyright owner does not have the form of protection available to a patent
owner. SCO seems to want all of the protection available under a software
patent while only holding an old copyright.

SCO could force everybody to use a pencil if they had the patent to both pen
and ink.

They cannot force anybody to stop writing textbooks on geometry, trig, and
calculus if they only have a copyright on an algebra text. They can't even
stop anybody from writing a newer algebra text and using some of their
ideas. They can't even stop anybody from using excerpts from their own
copyright text as long as the original work is attributed to the owners.
That is why copyrights are a weak form of protection.

Reverse engineering is legal when there are no patents. Old technology can
become a standard after being around long enough and everybody adopts the
standards when there are no patents. A copyright can't stop that type of
use.

A copyright really only stops wholesale copying and relabeling and does not
stop progress. So differential equations use a lot of algebra. Without a
patent, there is very little protection at all.

I for years tried to "escape ms witch mountain", way back to 1994 or so with OS2 & OS/2 Warp. I only started REGULARLY using ms in about 1989 or 199, using ms winword. I'd been using WordPerfect 5.x and loved it, once I had the non-dos thing in hand. Then, came along winword at work and I had to edit my company's HR policy. It was pure HELL. I had to learn a new editing way.

I had later, about 1995 I think, while temping at Lotus Development in Mountain View, CA, used Lotus Notes, Lotus SmartSuite, and then-Borland Paradox 4.x and then 5 (or was it 3.x and then 4.x?. I know it was from dos to GUI...) I became hooked on SmartSutie and various games, but then IBM was trying to market OS/2. I simply had too many problems with my CDROM hardware, the joysticks and a few other things. The problems were greater than with windoze alone. But, I still tried to get off of ms.

My attempts to escape ms were not "because bill gates is RICH", or because ms is 'everywhere". No, I could care LESS that a person or company can be "RICH"; rather, I care about HOW they got rich. Hookery, crookery and such are despicable. I simply have a set of morals and ethics that find ms thoroughly despicable. My first computer came with DOS 3.x and Win 3.1. I didn't have much say if I wanted to by a pre-assembled comptuer. This was Feb or March 1993. Worse, MANY other computer stores were being shaken down by ms to pay royalties and such for the privilege of selling computer hardware. At that point every henchman/woman in ms should have been "career kneecapped".

I of course could have used Mac, and actually, I did. I used it at Synoptics (circa Nov 94/95?) before they changed names to Bay Networks (trivia: The Synoptics/WellFleet merger resulted in ""Bay" Networks" because each was situated near Bays...Although Synoptics was south of Mission College by a half mile, and MC is south of Alviso, which is south of a fetid salt/sewer marsh... and thus the butt of many jokes...digression..) Having used Apple's computers in the Marketing Department gave me day-to-day relief from microsoft and a chance to objectively (or subjectively) evaluate Apple's products. I realized I cared more for a multi-button mouse. I cared more for decent colors, cheaper hardware, and more.

My second computer, in 1997, had win95. I had a NUMBER of problems with that PowerSpec, as any reinstallation requried a drivers disk and if I wasn't resinstalling regularly, I'd forget that I needed the disk.

My third computer, in Feb 200 (not counting relics I'd been given (naked, mind you, NO software) was a Gateway Select and I could not purchase it naked. Wasnt' the anti-trust trial of the early 90s supposed to help clarify that users could by hardware systems and dispense with the os, even at purchase time?

My 4th cmputer was a Sony Vaio, which I purchased in 2001. I could not get a refund from Frys, nor from microshaft. Each party bounce me to the other, then ms to Sony. I countered with "Sony didn't WRITE windows millennium; YOU did. THEY don't owe me a refund; YOU DO!" I got nowhere.

I bought 5 more computers on oh, about 6 Sept 2001, and I made SURE they were naked. I bought the pieces and everything was so cheap I KNEW I was not paying ms for a god#$$ "privilege" of using their wares. Considering the speciousness, perniciuosness, and idignation of that recidevist company (which by the way owns the operating system that broke down and left the USN's USS Yorktown dead in the water on a number of occasions)

(The British Royal Navy better consider the implications of SCO's self-submarining, as I read that the RN uses SCO HEAVILY in its fleet...Imagine if they cannot modify the code...)

Anyway, I don't OWE ms JACK! (consider this analog: My parents raise me, feed me, clothe me, etc. Then, they physically or sexually or financially abuse me, ridicule me, ignore my security needs, toss me to the wind when I need help, or they do similar to others, even if never to me. Now, should they STILL "command" my respect? Hell no!). Anyone who's had a beef with ms or who fears ms has the RIGHT to abandon them without fear of lockin, be they person, company, or government or nation. For ms, it's either "shape up or perish!", Period. I am doing MY part to deny them cash flow. Messing with someone's cash flow (presuming they "earned" it) is dangerous. I am simply denying them access to that which they neither created nor deserve: any cash I might have on hand...

Linux users may be vocal and "immature" via the use fo profanity, but given all the IT problems "astute" "learned" "degreed" corporates suffer, they have to ask themselves a Dirty Harry-style question: "Do I feel LUCKY?" Well, DO YOU!? Because of Linux, GNU/GPL/OSS/FSF, I FEEL LUCKY! The world is able to loosen the grips of hegemony, unless US & UK lawmakers bend over and provide the lube for the act about to ream them, which they'll pass on down the unsuspecting consumer and prosumer...

I personally could care less that microsoft thinks ***it*** was the cause for/of cheaper hardware. I dont' have to thank gates or ms for that. The REAL cause was not just spread sheets, but the fact that every tom, dick and helene who could desgn a board or card or peripheral did and in flooding the markets, drove down prices. That ms beat Lotus to a GUI spreadsheet, or that games gradually moved to windoze is just one factor.. Eventually, SOMEone would have come along to commoditize hardware. Interestingly, for those (myself included) who don't or didn't know, microsoft purportedly (or factaully) was a MAJOR opponent of software patents (or was ti copyrights?). Now, look at where they are. They own hundreds of patents. I think most were from acquisitions, not internal "innovation".

I only in 1989 SAW the Linux sticker on the van of a family member who was (and still is) often quiet and quite nerdy. Hence, I didn't know what Linux was until 1999. I found a copy of SuSe Linux at Central Computers in Santa Clara and installed it onto a spare disk which I inserted into my then-employer's Dell Lattitude. It was great, but took a LONG time for me to sift through packages. An interesting thing was when I wantedt to print on the company printer, Caldera Linux e-Descktop 2.4 (about year 2000) popped up its login display and showed me icons for every printer an user ID in the company. WOW! so many icons for faces were popping up I became worried that the Unix guys & girls would perceive my laptop as an intrusion, and being a former IT person in the same company, and being a Linux Newbie, I decided to yank it from the LAN and edit the login routine.

Anyway, SuSE & Caldera Linux (the good Caldera, not this vomitous wretch that is DNA twisted by the new cadges/cabal in power) triggered me to finally realize I had my salvation to escape ms witch mountain.

Now, as stated earlier in this tome/spiel/drivel/screed, I had reasons to leave ms. My morals and ethics were partly or mainly the reason. Not so much for issues with ms and the drivers and hardware. Actually I had fun buying new and weird hardware and learning about computers. That stemmed from my liking to draw nautical and space ships, houses, and building. I also liked building kit models. I'd taken mechcanical engineering classes around 1992, and back in 1982 I'd been a drafting/architecture student in High School. In the USN, I became a Radioman, and my mechanical aptitude got me assigned to TWO choices: Morse Code Key Operator or Teletype Repair. I feared dit-dahs, and I went to the teletypes (high level-mechanical with hundreds of ratches, springs, pawls, levers, etc...), and then to Savin Copier Repair, then teletype repair (low level, electrical) and I guess that is why I had no problems using and playing with computers.

Moving to LInux was easy, to a degree, based on knowing that even as much as I despised ms to the point that I would rather have purged ms from my life, I **could** use win9x to identify and verify that my hardware was still working and not defective. Hmmm, maybe THIS is a secret, non-thought-of reason why ms introduced the PAK (Product Activation Key)... Maybe it was to cut down on key theft, but it could also have been at the behest of hardware manufacturers and stores which got tired of returns (Fry's Electronics had so many Promise IDE card returns for QA or simple geek testing that I had to return to them 3 or 4 times before I got one that wasn't opened. and re-shrink-wrappes (this was in or around 1994/1995), or, it could have been that ms KNEW that if Linux "took off" people who were not technically savvy would at least figure out how to buy a bunch of hardware and boot up windoze, jot down the settings, and then test them and assign IRQs. But, maybe that is a flawed reach-into-the-past assumption.

What I DO find interesting is that many people (including so-called-respected-journalists at major pro-windows magazines) STILL do not realize that MUCH of the hardware marketed at ms windows users is initially designed in Unix tools. Simply: ms windoze, even win2k & xp still crash too much for serious HARDWARE development. I know from 1997-2000 my last long-time employer had HUNDREDS of Sparc or Solaris or other Sun equipment. The DVD, Codec, and multipleser/encoders hardware and some software were initially done in Linux. The engineers had windoze machines to do corporate stuff in ms word, excel, and netscape and such, tho a number of techhies/engineers STILL use the Unix implementations, shunning ms. Even in 2001 when I temped for 2 weeks at one of the former employers, engineers were STILL getting Linux boxes.

I rand into an engineer last week who is from Synopsis, here in Hillsboro who concurred that Unix is still robust and even Linux as a development environment would be preferable than to do hardware and some software designs on a 2k or xp box. I suggest (as I'd a few days prior to encountering this engineer) that their is a point in development at which the marketing forces dictate the conversion of the Unix developments into marketable products aimed at ms win users just because that is the larger market share, EVEN THOUGH Unix and Linux users could have benefitted from the finished goods being available to them. The engineer definitely concurred.

So for ANY "reputable" magazine "journalist" to say "windows users can walk into almost any computer store and find hardware ready to use in windows...this is not the case with Linux...." needs to pull their head out of the sand and realized MOST of thee h/ware makers obfuscate or hide away the useful or important information to keep all development efforts skewed in favor of ms.

Anybody who knows more is welcome to couter or confirm that.

Anyway, this is long, rambling, and more, but I DO FULLY APPRECIATE the freedom, flexibilty, and POWER that Linus, RMS, ESR, Andrew Tridgell, and the thousands upon THOUSANDS of engineers and well-meaning lawyers have bestowed upon GNU/GPL/LGPL. This freedom represents a DIRECT THREAT to the "American way of doing business" (slinging thousands of patents around the world every few months, trying to sew up markets and stifle innovation and freedom--ah, isn't that what gates & co do??? interesting...) (and, by extension "microsoft", particularly since many ENLIGHTENED (not just cash-strapped) individuals, companies, government agencies, and even militaries in and outside the USA are exploring and embracing Linux in numbers ms would prefer to "spin down"), as Linux (the kernel) is as the OSS is: INTERNATIONAL. International is the way of the future, and any flag-wrapped, or money-mongering, or pigheaded (regardless of their home nation) legislator, ceo, or investor who is too lame to realize that they will have to change or adapt, rather than outright destroy Linux, deserves to be catacombed on a level commensurate with bringing them back "down to earth". Linux makes it possible to escape virus and worm attacks. The bugs will be there, but the bugs in Linux/OSS get resolved by far a lot faster than under the proprietary model. THis is a STRENGTH for OSS and would be for proprietary, if they could bring themselves to receive and implement fixes from the outside without trying to "own" those external inputs.

I'll let someone else "take up the bataon" at this point...

BTW, my wins in PySol are a lot less painful to attain than under win98. I thnk my constant loss ratio under ms' solitaire is an indicator of ms' always wanting to win... PySol is less of a jerk about making the player lose. I think it is an indicator that Open Source Software is FOR THE PEOPLE, not against them or out for the wallets...

Oh, for any pedants out there... the reference bewteen gates & my parents is not to say anything about HIS character. It is merely to show that filial piety and allegiance to some scheme designer who just happens to please millions (while equally offending millions more) doesn't mean eternal allegiance is owed.

In corporate terms, it would be among the front runners for "most famous stupid last mistake". Why?

Even at an inflated price, Red Hat could afford to buy SCO and free up Unix once and for all.

Could they afford to buy every other meathead who subsequently popped out of the woodwork waving a lawsuit in one hand and with the other out? I think not. I think many meatheads would be killed in the rush, too.

SCO doesn't want it to be tried in public before it is tried in court.

Quoting Mork (in response to an assertion "I didn't come here to be made a fool of!"): Oh, no! Too late!
SCO have well and truly been tried in public, weighed in the balances and found completely wanting. The only way to go from here is up. It follows that SCO have nothing to lose by putting its cards on the table IF they have a real case. If it's all bluff (-: any takers? :-), I think it would be hard to convince a judge that this wasn't grand fraud at the decades-in-jail level.

You missed the point. If SCO had a problem with IP, why don't they ask the Kernel mantainer to remove the code. Instead they write to Linux customers and pread FUD.

If there was a mistake it can be corrected and if IBM made a mistake IBM will correct it and pay a fee to SCO or whatever. IP infringements are nothing special, but why does SCO start such a media campaign that turns out to be more a kind of FUD show.

In Germany SCO Deutschland was judged because of anti-competetive behaviour. Dirty business mehtods like SCO's shall be punished. IP rights in the hands of failed companies are a danger to society. LAw has to protect businesses and Linux from anti-competitive behaviour, unfortunately competition law is less strict in other parts of the world.

One thing that I can state after talking to a number of Linux developers in private defense contracting firms is that a great deal of generic code that they have released under the GPL has worked its way back into UNIX, and none of them have any doubt that SCO/Caldera have integrated portions of this code into their version of UNIX without complying with the GPL, thus voiding any claims they may legitamately have. None seem concerned, because the general consenses is that this lawsuit is simply a ruse to get IBM to purchase SCO rather than litigate. SCO has no marketable current products; they are essentially an extinct company. SCO literally has no realistic claims to the rights it has professed, and should be sued for damages for the infamous letter to 1500 companies. Stop lending credibility to their claims by signing the NDA and simply ignore them. They will go away, or be made to disappear.

Could I ask you to get those Linux developers to pinpoint the code they say has been released under the GPL and then worked back into Unix?If this could be brought to bear, it would not only deflate the court case, it would also deflate the value of SCO and probably enable IBM to bargain-basement them quite effectively. And also, since the GPL is quite plain in its demands, we could see Unix System V Release [1234] released under the GPL and Microsoft deeply embarrassed.Wesley Parish

...
arch/s390x/kernel/binfmt_elf32.c:/* For SVR4/S390 the function pointer to be registered with `atexit` is
arch/s390x/kernel/binfmt_elf32.c:#define SET_PERSONALITY(ex, ibcs2) set_personality((ibcs2)?PER_SVR4:PER_LINUX)
arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32_binfmt.c: set_personality((ibcs2)?PER_SVR4:current->personality);
Documentation/sound/README.OSS: Ian Hartas SVR4.2 port
drivers/net/dgrs.c: * Derived from the SVR4.2 (UnixWare) driver for the same card.
drivers/char/vt.c: * Console (vt and kd) routines, as defined by USL SVR4 manual, and by
drivers/char/rio/rioparam.c: ** Could set LNE here if you wanted LNext processing. SVR4 will use it.
drivers/sound/CHANGELOG:- SVR4.2 support by Ian Hartas. Initial ALPHA TEST version (untested).
fs/binfmt_elf.c: * Set up the notes in similar form to SVR4 core dumps made
fs/proc/kcore.c: * Set up the notes in similar form to SVR4 core dumps made
fs/locks.c: * BSD and SVR4 practice.
include/asm-ppc64/elf.h: set_personality(PER_SVR4);
include/linux/personality.h: PER_SVR4 = 0x0001 | STICKY_TIMEOUTS | MMAP_PAGE_ZERO,
include/linux/elfcore.h: * Definitions to generate Intel SVR4-like core files.
include/linux/elfcore.h: * These mostly have the same names as the SVR4 types with "elf_"
include/linux/elfcore.h: * the SVR4 structure, but more Linuxy, with things that Linux does
include/linux/bfs_fs.h:/* SVR4 vnode type values (bfs_inode->i_vtype) */
include/asm-i386/elf.h:/* SVR4/i386 ABI (pages 3-31, 3-32) says that when the program starts %edx
...

There is a high possibily that data structures which describe hardwares and/or devices drivers and/or TCP/IP stacks came from a standard and programmers copied them from the same RFC etc verbatim. So if the code is a data structure declaration, some 80 lines would be considered small.

No. I would have to be quite careful about contributing to the Linux kernel, but I wasn't planning on contributing to the kernel anyhow. The NDA only covers details about the code which SCO showed me. They didn't show me anything related to gcc, et. al., and I'm not aware of any IP claims they have regarding those tools. So I think I am safe.

There seems to be one confusion here. If there is SCO code then it can't be linked with GPL code, and as a non US Linux developer I intend to sue any vendor who decides to agree there is SCO code and distributes it linked with my GPL code.

As such the "licensing" notion by which SCO seeks to turn Linux back into proprietary unix that Ian talks about doesn't exist as a scenario.

SCO stock is at a high point, but the Unix community should buy
SCO stock when it dips.

Yes, SCO wants to be bought - but they want to be bought for
billions. Lets slowly purchase stock 100 shares at a time and
win control of the company. If we succeed, the code ought to be
put in the public domain, not GPL'd.

To start with I am NOT a lawyer However
If you read the rulling in the USL vs. BSDI and The Regents of University of California you will be left with the impression that much of the AT&T Unix code that was in exsistance in 1992/1993 might just be in the public domain
if my understanding of the ruling is correct. I have provided a link that apears to be a ruling from that case on the injunction USL tried to get against BSDI .

thanx for writing this informative and enlightening article. i especially appreciate the way you frame any editorializing comments you make; your approach is refreshing and well-informed.

since i'm about to start working on the AIX kernel for IBM (well, that was the plan anyways...), i've been following this story quite closely and this is one of the best articles i've read on the topic.

My next suggestion is that Linus and the Linux maintainers form a foundation to hold copyright declarations for Linux. Linus has made clear in the past that he does not want all the Linux copyrights held in the same place. While that means there is no single party who can be sued about a GPL violation, my impression is Linus thinks that is an advantage.

That last sentence reads a bit strangely. I wouldn't think anyone would be suing a kernel developer because of a GPL violation.

Did you mean there is no single party who can sue because of a GPL violation? That is one of the FSF's reasons for requiring assignments.

This appears to be an editing error on the part of Linux Journal, which I didn't notice when I read their version. I originally wrote While that means that there is no single party who can sue about a GPL violation, my impression is that Linus thinks that that is an advantage.

Each file in the Linux kernel is copyrighted by the author.
So if SCO were to go after Linux, and alleged copying in 5 files, they would have to sue 5 individuals. And if they won, they could force those 5 individuals to pay fines, and presumably prevent redistribution of those 5 files. No rights over any other developer or any other file in the Linux kernel would be implied by these lawsuits.

However if SCO were to find problems with any GNU (as opposed to GPLed) software, whose copyright is owned by the FSF, they could sue the FSF. And if the FSF was found guilty, then the judge could potentially sell all of the FSF copyrights to Microsoft to pay the FSF's fines, including files not involved in the original suit.

The former sure looks better to me: no single party who can be sued about a GPL violation. Taking on the FSF is like taking on any other corporation. Taking on the Linux developers would be like trying to swat sandflies one at a time.

I guess, however, that even if the FSF was forced to relinquish its copyrights, the rights guaranteed to users of the code would still be valid, so a new "fork" could be created.

This was a great article and help me understand more about what is going on then I thought I knew.

As far as RedHat buying SCO, I bet if RedHat setup "help us buy SCO" fund, many would contribute. I know I would. There are a lot of Linux users out there. Many more then are registered. As a community we may be able to help settle this. If RedHat doesn't get enough or fails, the money gets donated to the FSF. Heck if everyone just goes and buys a copy of RedHat (vs download it for free) that may help RH reach the goal on their own. I agree with the author. It would be very cool.

The part the bugs me the most is that SCO/Caldera used and made money off of linux. They used code generated by hundreds of hard working developers, most of which, did it for free. I consider them (SCO) to be worthless, petty, and evil.

*You* can buy SCO now if you wish. I was going to sell mine, but now I'm holding so I can vote against everything the Board wants. If enough sane people buy SCO, we can sell our shares to someone like Redhat at a reasonable price. Or put our proxies together and oust the current management.

I think it would be in the best interest for an organization such as the FSF to do the buying. That should permanently eliminate another, similar threat. It would also allow companies such as IBM, HP, Red Hat, et al, to donate larger sums of money.

If the FSF (or whoever) were to make the purchase, then they could begin reviewing the code and opening anything not otherwise copyrighted by another party.

This is true. If Caldera (before they bought SCO) made enough money by selling linux to the public and eventually turned around and bought the rights to UNIX then is that not the same as selling billions of pirate copies of WIndows and then in turn buying out Microsoft? How can they claim anything when the reason they were able to buy out the SCO rights were because of their sale of copies of linux? These execs at SCO remind me of an earlier time, when the execs at Amiga/Commodore were only in it for the money and in turn let a good platform fail.

Larry Ellison calls McBride and basically says "How much for the whole company, I'll write you a check".
SCO becomes a division of Oracle (or just to insure that the FTC doesn't go through the roof, just another of Ellison's holdings.)
Larry hates Bill (see september 2002 playboy interview for more info.), Larry calls Bill and revokes any and all of Microsoft's Unix interoperability licenses. At the same time, SCO (now a holding of Ellison), releases a version of Linux/Unix optimized for the Oracle Database, possibly bundling it along with Oracle.
Microsoft gets screwed, SCO goes away (or at least becomes a lot nicer), Larry makes more money and the Unix / Linux ip issue is moot.

If what Microsoft said is true, they were considering purchasing licenses from SCO long before this battle. However, I know that at one time Microsoft produced it's own flavor of UNIX which was at the time, called Xenix. Weather or not SCO purchased it from them, I don't know.

Talking about UNIX developement, my old Free BSD4 book says on page 8: "...changes in legal regulations between 1977 and 1984 enabled AT&T first to license UNIX to other vendors, noticably Microsoft, who announced XENIX in 1981, and then to market it itself. AT&T developed System III in 1982, and System IV in 1983. The differences between Xenix and System V were initially small, but they grew: by the mid 80s, there were four different versions of UNIX: the Research Version, only used inside AT&T, the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) from Berkeley, and the commercial System V from AT&T, and XENIX, which no longer interested Microsoft, and was marketed by the company which had developed it, the Santa Cruz Operation, or SCO." (their emphasis)
Apprently the Santa Cruz Operation is the SCO bought by SCO as mentioned in the article. (my emphasis)
I find it interesting that Microsoft was into "innovation" even back then!

indirect financial ties...
...as in: someone from Microsoft secretly contacted someone else from SCO (or Canopy, the sugar daddys of SCO) and said "we give you this bagful of greenies, you go ahead and ***** on Linux" - is that what you're saying?
If you do, then you have the same suspicion as myself. ;-)

SCO said that besides IBM, Sequent has contributed code to Linux which is derived from Unix. Sequent is now a subsidiary of IBM.

Sequent did not get into the business of contributing our Dynix/PTX code to Linux. IBM did that when they bought us.BTW, Sequent is NOT a subsidiary of IBM, we were purchased and the name subsequently thrown away (along with our culture, people, and products).

In my case (E-man), even though I did some work for Groklaw, she apparently decided I was probably astroturfing once I started disagreeing with PJ on a few things. One thing that made her suspicious was that I was accessing Groklaw from home, so I didn't have a fixed IP address. Anyway, Groklaw made it so that my many of my comments were only visible to me. (I would think they posted, but no one else could see them.) Once I started to complain about that, my account became disabled. No doubt some people do astroturf, but I wasn't.

This is most likely just disingenious PR on SCO's part. They do not give a toss about what happens to Linux. They're simply in the business of extracting money by litigating anyone they can, as has been demostrated very clearly by the history of the people who are runing this show at SCO. If they seriously wanted to 'to get to the point where Linux can move forward' they could just not sue or place that code in the public domain (if it is theirs to place in the public domain, Novell may disagree).

Why is the US Government even giving copyrights to something that no one is allowed to see? Unless we are talking about the technique for Bio weapons or Nuclear devices, what is the grave danger to the nation in revealing the source code?

As I understand it concepts are not patentable, only the means. "4" should not be copyrightabel, only a specific procedure to get that result.

As I recall from some where, the company that makes most of the styrofoam coffee cups never patented their machinery so that the competition would not be able to learn anything from the patent papers.